A new A/C

Looks like someone hit a Skyhawk hard with an ugly stick. That said, a new airplane is always a good thing. I hope they sell lots.
 
The 162 lives on. Looks like a lot of money tied up in the panel.
 
Not shabby, but is it IFR?

Shy of a IMC plane, it seems a good deal of money tied up in a panel that you can't get much use out of, vs barebones with maybe couple G5s or something small and cheap to remove any need for a vac system or spinning gyros and maybe toss in a iPad so the kids won't get lost.
 
I'm betting that's a vinyl wrap. While also not crazy about the paint/vinyl job, overall looks cool to me, I hope they succeed. Please add a TW version. Would be a like a modern C140.
 
Reminds me of a Murphy Rebel.
 
James331 said:
Not shabby, but is it IFR?
Click to expand...

Has to be stated in the operation mins by the mfg. So I'm "guessing" they'd be shouting about it if it's in their ops. At a min it would need some backup instruments. Maybe that's the "fully equipped" reference in the vid?



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
CRQFlier said:
Has to be stated in the operation mins by the mfg. So I'm "guessing" they'd be shouting about it if it's in their ops. At a min it would need some backup instruments. Maybe that's the "fully equipped" reference in the vid?



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As a LSA isn't IMC out of the question?
 
Hate to say it, but I don’t see it having any greater success than other very similar LSA’s on the market already. Nothing cutting edge about it that I can see.

I had to laugh when they said they wanted to produce an affordable airplane that was sub-100k in price.

*I wanted to come out of the store under $10.00 and by golly I did, only spent $9.99!*
 
Shepherd said:
No offense, but with that paint scheme, you would have to knock enough off the top so I could repaint it.
Otherwise, good luck.
Click to expand...

My first thought was they must have bought out the army supply of surplus WWII paint....:lol::lol:
 
James331 said:
As a LSA isn't IMC out of the question?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Mfg has to have it in ops limits and of course needs to be equipped properly.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Shepherd said:
No offense, but with that paint scheme, you would have to knock enough off the top so I could repaint it.
Otherwise, good luck.
Click to expand...

Shepherd, check their website out. The

Base paint is 3/4’s white with just graphics on the tail. $9,500 for that or a custom paint scheme.
 
James331 said:
As a LSA isn't IMC out of the question?
Click to expand...

Depends on the operating limitations. I’ve seen an LSA Legend Cub that is allowed to fly in IMC under the limitations it has. Others do not have that provision in the limitations.
 
James331 said:
Not shabby, but is it IFR?

Shy of a IMC plane, it seems a good deal of money tied up in a panel that you can't get much use out of, vs barebones with maybe couple G5s or something small and cheap to remove any need for a vac system or spinning gyros and maybe toss in a iPad so the kids won't get lost.
Click to expand...

How do you not get use out of the flat-panel? It provides the same info that a six-pack does, and more. I would think it would make installation easier to plug in a couple of harnesses instead of having to wire certain instruments into the buss, vac lines, etc, in addition to having to have a separate radio stack. Also, as they mentioned, the glass panel is what many newer generation pilots look for in order to classify an aircraft as "modern". If you are trying to get sales from the 30-somethings, and it means you have to drop $15K instead of $5K for the panel in order to get the sales, I'd think it's a no-brainer anymore. I understand the "all I need is a 6-pack" sentiment, but there's little reason for any new aircraft not to go with current tech unless you're really worried about $10K on a $100K aircraft.
 
SoonerAviator said:
How do you not get use out of the flat-panel? It provides the same info that a six-pack does, and more. I would think it would make installation easier to plug in a couple of harnesses instead of having to wire certain instruments into the buss, vac lines, etc, in addition to having to have a separate radio stack. Also, as they mentioned, the glass panel is what many newer generation pilots look for in order to classify an aircraft as "modern". If you are trying to get sales from the 30-somethings, and it means you have to drop $15K instead of $5K for the panel in order to get the sales, I'd think it's a no-brainer anymore. I understand the "all I need is a 6-pack" sentiment, but there's little reason for any new aircraft not to go with current tech unless you're really worried about $10K on a $100K aircraft.
Click to expand...


For hard core VFR ops I really don't even need a full 6 pack, I'd rather it just be simple and light.
 
Ryanb said:
Hate to say it, but I don’t see it having any greater success than other very similar LSA’s on the market already. Nothing cutting edge about it that I can see.

I had to laugh when they said they wanted to produce an affordable airplane that was sub-100k in price.

*I wanted to come out of the store under $10.00 and by golly I did, only spent $9.99!*
Click to expand...

Just about all LSA aircraft sell for more than $125K. I think they've done a great job on the plane.
 
James331 said:
For hard core VFR ops I really don't even need a full 6 pack, I'd rather it just be simple and light.
Click to expand...

I get that, but most people who are going to spend $100K on a hard core VFR bird and want a minimalist panel are probably buying a SuperCub or similar. The nice thing about having the panel is that you can use it just for altitude/airspeed/attitude and engine data, or you can utilize the full suite of capabilities when desired/needed. If it's only equipped with a handful of round gauges, you don't get the option to pull up a map or radio frequency in the event you need it. Different strokes.
 
I'd be surprised if the glass panel wasn't lighter that a traditional six pack. And, if this was experimental-which it isn't- cheaper.
 
The problem with putting an 0-200 in an LSA is that the useful load suffers. I assume one of the roles that the Ranger was as a trainer, and it seems like it's simple and rugged, but 445 lbs useful load is maybe not quite enough. For typical trainer use if you put 15 gallons aboard you're OK with two average size people, so you're rather limited there.
 
FormerHangie said:
The problem with putting an 0-200 in an LSA is that the useful load suffers. I assume one of the roles that the Ranger was as a trainer, and it seems like it's simple and rugged, but 445 lbs useful load is maybe not quite enough. For typical trainer use if you put 15 gallons aboard you're OK with two average size people, so you're rather limited there.
Click to expand...

In other words, just like a 150/152 then?

What engine would you rather see in it? Just curious.
 
In the interests of full disclosure:
I did a little digging.
The company has a VERY modern manufacturing plant. Highly automated, high levels of quality control.
The base aircraft is white. You can pick your vinyl wrap color scheme.
The base price, with one Dynon panel, which includes autopilot, $99,000.00.
Avionics upgrade to two panels is $114,000.00.

It has a 45" wide cockpit, and the seats fold forward so you can sleep inside the plane, if you are so inclined. I think it's 78" of space to the rear bulkhead.
Not quite enough headroom to put in a net and shoot hoops, but close.
I like the cantilever wing, and the beefy landing gear. Should make a good back country camper, trainer and float plane, which are some of the uses they are pushing.
If the company wants to give me access to one, I'd be happy to do a full report.
 
mondtster said:
In other words, just like a 150/152 then?

What engine would you rather see in it? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Most LSAs use a Rotax 912 ULS/S, and I think that would be a good fit here.

One thing it has over a 150 is that rate of climb. That would be nice to have for pattern work. I learned in Grumman AA1s and we'd see 500 fpm on a soggy Georgia summer afternoon with the canopy open.
 
FormerHangie said:
Most LSAs use a Rotax 912 ULS/S, and I think that would be a good fit here.

One thing it has over a 150 is that rate of climb. That would be nice to have for pattern work. I learned in Grumman AA1s and we'd see 500 fpm on a soggy Georgia summer afternoon with the canopy open.
Click to expand...

I figured you'd say Rotax. The weights on them are a little better, enough that you might be able to get up to 500lbs useful.

I was only referring to the useful load when referencing the 150/152. Most of the 150/152s I've looked at are between 450-500lbs. Other performance metrics might be better. Overall, this airplane is somewhat appealing to me for a few different reasons. Hopefully they do well and find a market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top